Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 15:00:41 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
Message-Id: <2950-Tue20Nov2001150040+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.1.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <007d01c171b5$8ee89130$0a02a8c0@acceleron> (acottrel@ihug.com.au)
Subject: Re: GNU Grep alpha release 2.5e
References: <000d01c170ed$a6f46880$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron> <007d01c171b5$8ee89130$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 22:21:23 +1100
> 
> I downloaded the CVS 2.5f code as this was suggested by the current Grep
> maintainer that this may fix the it. I now get past the HAVE_LIBPCRE and now
> find that DJGPP does not have support for S_ISSOCK(stats->stat.st_mode)
> which was introduced in the changes since 2.5e. Should I get arround this by
> defining it out for DJGPP as per the change below or define it in sys\stat.h
> to always be false such as:-
>         #define S_ISSOCK(m) (0x00)

None of the above, IMHO.  S_ISSOCK is not sufficiently portable (even
though the latest draft of Posix requires it) for programs to use it
freely.  I think Grep should only use S_ISSOCK if it is defined, not
only for DJGPP.

>  > I have a few questions about this:-
> >     1) Should I delete the redundant files in the DJGP directory?
> >     2) Should I move the djgpp\readme file to the main grep directory and
> > rename it to readme.dos?
> >     3) Is there any problem as "releasing" this as an alpha release for
> > DJGPP? By releaseing I mean put it on the main html page at clio and put
> the
> > sources and binary files to the incoming directory at delorie.com? (I need
> > to build a 2.03+ DJGPP setup on my Win 98 PC before I can produce the
> binary
> > files to send )
> >     4) Are important are the documentation zip files?
> 
> Anyone disagree with the following suggestions:-
> 1) Yes

Agreed; but please make sure what you delete is indeed redundant ;-)

> 2) Yes

This is up to the package maintainer.

> 3) No

Maybe, I don't know.  Are there any significant user-level changes in
this versions as compared to 2.4?

In any case, if you can test the build on a non-LFN platform, it's
highly recommended.

> 4) Unknown.

Not very important, but if you have the time to produce them and the
bandwidth to upload them, why not?